Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Dear Steve: Let me explain the real meaning of "fear."

As much as I didn't feel like revisiting this issue, there's just a little too much to say to let it go by, so you'll forgive me if I decide to rip Canadian wanker Steve Janke a new one for being the insufferable dick that he is.

First (and I'll try to keep this part brief since there's so much more that needs to be said), it takes a special kind of right-wing assholitude to be waxing apoplectic these days over the appalling and totally unacceptable sentiments of one Deb Frisch, who dumped a pile of disgusting comments in the comments section of one Jeff Goldstein. (You remember Jeff Goldstein, right? You better, otherwise you're in for a serious cock-slapping. But I digress. Onward.)

It's fairly amusing to see the entire citizenry of Wankerville working themselves into a high dudgeon over the comments of one complete non-entity that most of us had never even heard of before. To read Steve's bullshit, you'd think he'd only just now ventured forth from his comfortable bubble to find that, heavens to Betsy, the blogosphere can be an unpleasant place! All that profanity and vulgarity! Why, it's enough to purely give one a case of the vapours, isn't it?

That's some nerve you've got there, Steve, considering the toxic cesspool you and your neo-con wank colleagues live in, with a constant stream of hate-filled bile from some of your best friends. I mean, really -- Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Kate McMillan ... oh, my, the list does go on, doesn't it? And yet, here you are, clawing your way through all of that right-wing nastiness and getting your nutsack in a knot over some utter nobody. That's some pretty selective outrage, don't you think, Steve? But that's not why we're here. Oh, no, there's a bigger issue at hand.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, you have to be pretty much a complete jackass to have written the following:

But back to our friend [Robert] McClelland. In my response to McClelland's nastiness, I mentioned my 5-year-old daughter in the context of knowing right from wrong. I wish I hadn't now. For the first time, I feel nervous knowing that McClelland knows I have young children.

To which one can only respond, fuck you, Steve, you lying sack of crap. As I already suggested in an earlier post, there is not a single person on the planet that genuinely believes that you're afraid of Robert McClelland. Not you, not me, not anyone. You know as well as I do that you don't have the slightest fear of Robert doing anything to your precious family but that doesn't stop you from being the despicable douchebag you are and throwing the suggestion out there.

No one's afraid of Robert McClelland, just as no one is legitimately concerned for their personal safety from Deb Frisch. You can think whatever you want of them in terms of wingnuttery or moonbattery or whatever catchy phrase the kids are using these days, but to suggest that you're actually in fear of them is indescribable rubbish. Because when it comes to fear, Steve, no one knows actual fear like those of us on the Left.

You want fear? Let me explain fear, Steve, you pompous prat.

Fear is wondering whether a bumper sticker on your car is going to get you fired. Or maybe arrested.

Don't talk to me about fear, Steve, you insufferable twit. You don't have the foggiest idea what the word means, when one of the biggest issues for you and your brain-dead friends is whether two guys you've never met and will never know have the right to get married. Ooooooh, that's frightening, isn't it, Steve? One wonders how you and your buds can even sleep at night, lying there in mortal dread for the sanctity of your marriages, or scared witless that someone is going to force your kids to learn about evolution, or something equally horrific.

Don't talk to me about fear, Steve. Not until the day that you are genuinely afraid that some crazed atheist who doesn't like you will actually try to murder your kids. Then, and only then, will you have the right to join the discussion.

11 comments:

I'm going to award you the match for making several excellent points here, but you don't get anywhere near a perfect 10 because you completely discounted a father's fear for his daughter.

It is possible to feel angry, repulsed, even disgusted by all the examples you cite (and I do), but as the father of a daughter in a universe where there have been examples of real-world stalkings and killings carried out by psychotic inhabitants of the murky realm of the internet, I can also assure you that it is possible to harbour simultaneous fears, indeed perhaps over-worry, for her safety.

Consider the definition of "psychotic". Such people don't begin with any basis of rational thinking. And how many such stories have you read where neighbours and friends are quoted expressing shock and horror because "he certainly didn't seem like the sort of person who would do THAT!"?

So I do not dismiss entirely Mr Janke's musing about whether, this once, he might have said a little too much.

Yes, it's very unlikely, but oh my Lord I don't ever wish upon him the tragic outcome of being able to say, "I told you so."

Yes, very well said. These rightwingers have been spewing their hate, smears and lies for too long now.

The disconnect is remarkable. Here is Janke fabricating out of a whole cloth a rationale to consider an identifiable person a threat to his child, and yet the commenters in his blog itself constitute a veritable circus of dangerous sounding lunatics. One the later commenters sounds like he wants all leftists to be exterminated.

I'm getting really pissed off at these proto-fascists...they're getting desperate and dangerous.

I knew McMillan and Janke were destructive loonies ages ago, although I just thought they were running troll breeding programmes and nothing more. Their reputations are solidifying and they are on the verge of causing actual damage to real people.

You just proved the kind of backhanded slanderous (or is libelous) attack Janke made on Robert. Simply by saying he was "worried" he implied, asserted and outright that Robert was dangerous to children. He made this based on the fact that Robert was of a different political stripe and said something he didn't like or agree with. He said it because he was, in fact, losing the debate.

Yes the internet has its share of blogging unstable persons - a certain former Ottawa blogger leaps to mind - but that usually come up when they actually do something.

Robert is not one of those and Janke's backhanded attacks is baseless and cowardly.

If this git was so concerned about his children's safety, was does he keep using them as props in his propoganda machine?